On 31/05/18 09:25, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
>> In the discussion of the beer brouhaha (distributor is Jewish and owns
>> beer over pesach), one source quoted is S'A C"M 99:7, which deals with a
>> case where Reuvain signs over his assets to a third party, borrows
>> money, but continues his business as if nothing happened. The Beit Din
>> is to look through the sign over if the lender comes to collect and
>> Reuvain claims insolvency.
>> Do you think it's a slam dunk that one could parallel this to selling an
>> ongoing business for Pesach?
[Zev Sero:]
> Not at all, for two separate reasons.
> First, there is no parallel at all between giving away all of ones
> property, in which case why would one still be using it, and selling a
> going concern, where obviously one does and is expected to stay and
> continue working for the business, and the business does and is expected
> to continue as usual, with no difference perceptible to the customers.
AIUI there was no change in the business other than the 'titular" ownership
> Second, that entire siman is about bet din not allowing people to get
> away with fraud, by rolling back transactions that were transparently
> made in order to defraud someone. In this se'if, the entire purpose of
> the "gift" was to defraud subsequent lenders, who were not to know that
> the "donor" no longer had any assets, and lent on the assumption that he
> still owned what he was publicly known to own. So in the name of equity
> the BD treats the transaction as never having happened. See the
> Mechaber's opinion at the end of se'if 2, where it's very clear that
> he's concerned about what's fair, not what's technically correct. So
> none of this has any relevance to Hilchos Pesach, where "equity" is not
> an issue; Hashem is not being "cheated". He commanded us not to own
> chametz, and He gave us a choshen mishpat to determine who owns what,
> and He certainly knows about all our transactions, so if we follow that
> CM and dispose of our chametz there's no "fraud" and no need for a BD to
> "pierce" it in the name of equity.
https://headlinesbook.podbean.com/mf/download/reyy6b/headlines_6-2-18.mp3
6/2/18 Owning Businesses in Halacha and Hashkafa: People who are making
a difference- Freddy Friedman, Elchonon Schwartz, Rabbi Yosef Kushner,
Nesanel Davis, Shimon Webster, Mr. Sol Werdiger
The first half deals with a similar type of arrangement for nursing
homes-so aiui you're saying it's up to the Rabbis to evaluate the "need"
in each case to determine if haaramah is allowable?
KT
Joel Rich

On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 06:28:46AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
: <https://www.torahmusings.com/2018/05/ramban-on-ibn-ezras-heresy>
: Ramban on Ibn Ezra's Heresy Posted by: Gil Student
...
: 2- It could be that Ramban interpreted Ibn Ezra conservatively,
: as some supercommentators and scholars have. If so, he could
: agree with R. Ezra of Gerona generally but disagree with him
: about Ibn Ezra.
...
: J. C. Salomon
: May 31, 18 at 6:49 pm
: Ibn Ezra to Gen. 36:31 strongly rejects and condemns the notion that
: the verse "And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom,
: before there reigned any king over the children of Israel" is a late
: addition to the text.
: I might add a sixth possibility to the list: that Ibn Ezra held that
: certain verses were added by Yehoshua; and that while Ramban might
: have disagreed with this view, he'd have seen it as a legitimate
: extension of the similar Talmudic view regarding the last eight
: verses in the Torah and therefore not heretical.
Except that the tell-tale idiom is "sod ha-12", not 8. From Devarim 1:1:
... And if you understand sod hasheneim asar...
Pit stop: the standard text doesn't even say that, it says "(hasarim)
[tz"l hashneim] asar". So there is a slight chance it doesn't even
say 12. Back to the IE:
... also "Vayikhtov Moshe" (31:22), "VehaKenaani as Ba'aretz"
(Bereishis 12:6), "Har H' Yeira'eh" (Bereishis 22:14), and also
"arso eres barzel (Devarim 3:11), you will regonize the truth.
If it does refer to the last 12 pesuqim (from Moshe going up Har Nevo),
then there are 5 quotes in discussion. 4 refer to the future, likely
quotes for someone to say were actually written later. But Og's iron
bed?
And besides, it's the last 8 pesuqim that amoraim argue how and if Moshe
could have written them. Now, if Moshe couldn't write "and Moshe died",
then it makes sense to argue that he couldn't write "and Moshe went up
Har Nevo" if he never came back. But that is more conjecture, that this
"12" is "12 pesuqim", and the last 12 pesuqim at that, and that it is
related to chazal's discussion of last 8 pesuqim, and all this despite
one of the quotes not having this "problem" of not being true when Moshe
left us.
And for all we know, the secret could be about prophecy. Even if all 5
were about the future, who knows what secret the IE posited to explain
them?
One of the parts of the Torah that is NOT in this list is the list of
kings of Edom "lifnei melokh melekh liVnei Yisrael", Bereishis 36:31.
On which the IE qrites:
Some say that this parashah was written bederekh nevu'ah.
And Yitzchaqi says in his book that this parashah was written in the
days of Yehoshafat, and he explains the generations as he wished.
This is why his name was called Yitzchaq -- kol hashomeia yitzachaq
li. .. Vechalillah chalilah that the matter is as he said about the
days of Yehoshafat. His book is worth burning...
And he explains that the kings ran in rapid succession, this being
warrior tribes of Edom. And the melekh Yisrael in the pasuq was Moshe,
"vayhi bishurun Melekh. A lot of work if the IE was okay with later
interpolations of narrative snippets of 12 pesuqim or less.
In 2002, RGStudent reposed something from Cardozo at
<http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_cardozo.html>. See fn 50:
Most enlightening is Spinoza's observation that some texts of the
Torah, such as the ones in Genesis 12:6; 22:14, and Deuteronomy 1:2,
must have been written many years after Moshe's death, since they
reveal information that refers to latter days. Spinoza relies here
on the famous Jewish commentator Ibn Ezra (1088-1167), who wrote that
these verses were "mysteries" about "which the wise should be silent"
(on Deuteronomy 1:2). The traditional understanding of Ibn Ezra,
as also confirmed by the modern Jewish scholar Samuel David Luzzatto
(ShaDaL) (1800-1865), is that these passages must be understood as
prophetic and anticipating the future. ....
However, in RGS's own essay on that web site
<http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_torah.html> writes:
Also, phrases and even verses were added to the texts that perhaps
even these prophets could not have written. For example, Ramban
explains (Genesis 8:21) "G-d said in His heart" as meaning that
this was only revealed to Moshe at the time of the writing of the
Torah. See also Ralbag there and Moreh Nevuchim 1:29. Another case is
Genesis 32:33, "Therefore the Children of Israel are not to eat the
gid hanasheh." According to the Mishna and Gemara in Chullin 101b,
as explained by Rashi, this verse was a later insertion by Moshe. See
the Radak's commentary to this verse. It is possible that Ibn Ezra, in
his "secrecy", believed that many more verses fall into this category
and were inserted into pre-existing narrative by G-d to Moshe.
His thesis there is that the Torah was redacted from pre-existing scrolls
during the Exodus; that it was this redaction that was dictated to
Moshe in Sinai. Since such megillos are named in a few places, it's a
pretty hard thesis to totally dismiss. The only question is how much
was already given in writing in texts like Seifer Milkhamos Hashem
(cf Bamidbar 21:13).
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket,
mi...@aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire.
http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 11:49:06PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote:
: If from nothing else, one should learn the importance of constancy from two
: recent Torah readings: the *chanukas-hamizbeiach* offerings of the N'si'im;
: and "vaya'as kein Aharon."
But knowing as an idea that constancy is a value is different than being
relate to constancy in one's practice.
Y-mi Nedarim 9:4 (violna ed. 30b) has the famous machloqes between R'
Aqiva and Ben Azai about whether the kelal gadol baTorah is "ve'havta
lerei'akha" or "zeh seifer toledos adam".
In the version in the introduction to the Ein Yaaqov, he quotes Ben Zoma,
attributes Rav Akiva's opinion to Ben Nanas, and then adds a new opinion:
Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi says: We have found a more inclusive verse than
that, and it is, "The first lamb you shall sacrifice in the morning
and the second lamb you shall sacrifice in the evening."
Rabbi Ploni stood up and said: The halachah is like Ben Pazi as it
is written, "As all that I show you, the structure of the Mishkan
and all its vessels: so shall you do."
That makes constancy kind of important.
FWIW, here is how my discussion (ch 2. sec. 3) of that quote goes:
There are two interesting implications to Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi's
and Rabbi Ploni's words.
First, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi could be making the point that Rabbi
Shem Tov ibn Shem Tov found in Ben Azzai's position -- the role of
personal development. After all, there are a number of verses that
discuss this offering; Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi chose a verse that
discusses its constant and regular nature. In his opinion, this is
the most important verse in the Torah -- even in his or our day,
after the destruction of the Second Beis HaMikdash and there are
no korbanos. Perhaps the point here is consistency in avodas Hashem
in-and-of-itself, not limited to this one mitzvah. Just as service
in the Mishkan has its schedule and routine, so too our observance
must be a discipline with well-defined structure and consistency.
Second, the anonymous rabbi endorses this view by quoting a verse
about the Mishkan and its vessels' structure, their composition, not
their service. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi statement is about something done
in the Beis HaMikdash as part of its daily service, but the proof
is about its structure. This rabbi is relating "so shall you do"
not only to following the description of that structure Hashem gave
us when building it but also to the discipline of the ritual within
it. The discipline in avodas Hashem of the previous implication
is a taken as fundamental part of what the building is. At least
homiletically, we can say this is true of both microcosms -- not
only the Mishkan, but also the human soul, as Rav Shimon ben Pazi
is giving importance to structure and consistency even in our era,
without a Mishkan or Beis HaMikdash. Discipline in avodas Hashem
is not only part of the structure of what the Mishkan is, but also
our own soul's structure. This homily would be consistent with Rav
Shimon's statement ...
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger You are not a human being in search
mi...@aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a
http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human
Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

On 5/25/2018 7:11 PM, Rn Toby Katz Avodah wrote:
> It is possible that one manifestation of ruach raah may be
> bacteria. So parents should definitely wash their hands before
> feeding their children.
According the Tosafos (Yuma 77b) and the Yam Shel Shelomo (Chulin
8:31) there isn't any ru'ach ra'ah anymore. Unsurprizingly, the Rambam
(Rotzeiach 12:5) doesn't mention ru'ach ra'ah when he discusses not
putting food under your bed, his reason is "shema yipol bo davar hamaziq".
If it is a modern and mundane issue, I would think ru'ach ra'ah is
depression, not a physical illness. The day after Shaul learns he lost
his throne, "vatilach ruach E-lokim ra'ah el Sha'ul". (Shemu'el I 18:9)
On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:17:24PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
: True but washing one's hands is not netilat ya'diim. It is soap and water.
Actually, you need to do both for neigl vasr, as you need to get rid of
chatzitzos. AhS 161:1, MB s"q 7,10.
So the question might be... What's the problem with chatzitzos? Can
someone make an argument that it's about places where disease can hide?
Then why haqpadah?
I really don't know what to do with RASoloveitchik's suggestion that
ru'ach ra'ah can be things like germs. If it's a saqanas nefashos thing,
then pesaqim should indeed be more maqpidim about things like soap
than about using a cup, koach gavra, etc...
BUT... this is RAS. I am assuming he did indeed have an explanation.
Keeping the discussion alive (and CC-ing R Harry Maryles) to see if
we can get down to one.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger The same boiling water
mi...@aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg.
http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of.

> But knowing as an idea that constancy is a value is different than being
relate to constancy in one's practice. <
Agreed, and both examples I mentioned are examples of doing, not knowing.
The point is that not just "v'halachta bidrachav" but also that
"v'halachta" in the path of the noted examples, that one should imitate
paragons of *derech H'*.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180605/344c70ef/attachment-0001.html>

Placing this article in Avodah because Rav Melamed uses the model of the
70 elders to show how differences in community leadership should be handled.
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/22250
A few critical paragraphs:
But when groups and institutions try to impose their opinion on members
of another circle, and abolish the status of their rabbis (and to
boycott them from becoming rabbinical judges and rabbis) we are no
longer speaking of a situation where the rabbis of Tzohar should also
establish a kashrut organization, but rather a situation in which it is
almost obligatory for them to establish one, just like other accepted
rabbinic organizations, in order to give halachic and Torah expression
to their part in the Torah. If they do not, then they are similar to a
prophet who suppresses his prophecy, or as our Sages said: ? Yea, all
her slain are a mighty host? ? this refers to a disciple who has
attained the qualification to decide questions of law, and does not
decide them? (Sotah 22a).
How Does a Difficult Dispute Develop?
At first, there is an argument over a focused halakhic issue. However,
when an agreement is not reached, instead of agreeing to disagree and
continuing to respect each other, one side thinks that the other has no
authority to retain his position, because, essentially, his position is
inferior, since he belongs to a liberal circle, or his position differs
from that of most rabbis. Then, that same party departs from the
particular halakhic issue they have debated, and moves on to a more
acute arena, in which the main argument is that the rabbi against whom
he is arguing with is not authorized to express a halachic position, for
in any case, who appointed him to be a rabbi who can express a position
at all?
Since this argument is not convincing enough, and the rabbi who is being
attacked remains in his position, consequently we are now moving over to
a dispute of a different magnitude ? since we are no longer dealing with
a person who rules on a matter without authority, but with a person who
undermines the foundations of authority as a whole, and thus, it is
compulsory to wage an all-out war against him?

The letter below appears on pages 113 - 114 of this week's Flatbush Jewish Journal.
It is not clear to me that all FJJ readers appreciate the gadlus of Rabbi
Shamshon Raphael Hirsch when it came to Torah. Indeed, last week MW
(whomever this may be) referred to RSRH as "Reb Shamshon Refoel Hirsch"
rather than as Rabbi or Rav or even Rabbiner.
Therefore, I feel that I should refer FJJ readers to Rav Yaakov Perlow's
article Rav S. R. Hirsch - The Gaon in Talmud and Mikra that appears in The
World of Hirschian Teachings, An Anthology on the Hirsch Chumash and the
Hashkafa of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, Published for the Rabbi Dr. Joseph
Breuer Foundation, Feldheim, 2008. Reading this article will give one a
true understanding of how great a Torah scholar RSRH was.
Moreover, the following is from page 102 of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Architect of Torah Judaism for the Modern World by Rabbi Eliyahu Meir Klugman.
We also have the assessment of the K?sav Sofer, Rabbi Avrohom Shmuel Binyamin Sofer, Rabbi of Pressburg and leader of Hungarian
Jewry. The K'sav Sofer first met Rabbi Hirsch in Vienna, not long after the latter assumed his post in Nikolsburg. On the first Shabbos after his
return to Pressburg, a large crowd came to his home for Shalosh Seudos in order to hear his observations about the new Chief Rabbi. Their
curiosity was understandable, since, as followers of the Chasam Sofer, the
K'sav Sofer's father, they harbored deep suspicions of anyone versed in
secular studies, which they considered a potent danger to the Jewish
people. The K?sav Sofer described his meeting with Rabbi Hirsch in the
following terms:
?We spoke at length on Torah subjects with the new ?Rosh Medinah? and whatever topic we discussed, his reply showed that he had Shas and
poskim on his fingertips. We, the rabbonim of Hungary, have to consider
ourselves very fortunate that he holds us to be his superiors as scholars,
for if he were only aware of the extent of his own scholarship, we would
have no rest from him.?
Finally, a talmud muvhak of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, ZT"L, told me that Rav
Hunter once told him that anything that Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch wrote
is Kodesh Kedoshim.
Based on this It should be clear to all that what RSRH wrote about one going to see the wonders of nature is to be taken very seriously.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180607/05f5daba/attachment-0001.html>

Assume community leadership believes morning prayer should last 45 minutes,
and posts appropriate starting and midpoint times. The majority of the
community comes well after the official starting time so as to reach
Yishtabach "on time" by praying more quickly. Does this accomplish the true
desired result or does it establish "unofficial" norms? If not, how else
might the desired result be accomplished?
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is
strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180607/fa5f49fa/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodahhttp://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
------------------------------
**************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
avodah@lists.aishdas.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/
You can reach the person managing the list at
avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."
A list of common acronyms is available at
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)